Diabetes and infection: review of the epidemiology, mechanisms and principles of treatment.

An association between diabetes and infection has been recognised for many years, with infection being an important cause of death and morbidity in people with diabetes. The COVID-19 pandemic has re-kindled an interest in the complex relationship between diabetes and infection. Some infections occur almost exclusively in people with diabetes, often with high mortality rates without early diagnosis and treatment. However, more commonly, diabetes is a complicating factor in many infections. A reciprocal relationship occurs whereby certain infections and their treatments may also increase the risk of diabetes. People with diabetes have a 1.5- to 4-fold increased risk of infection. The risks are the most pronounced for kidney infection, osteomyelitis and foot infection, but are also increased for pneumonia, influenza, tuberculosis, skin infection and general sepsis. Outcomes from infection are worse in people with diabetes, with the most notable example being a twofold higher rate of death from COVID-19. Hyperglycaemia has deleterious effects on the immune response. Vascular insufficiency and neuropathy, together with altered skin, mucosal and gut microbial colonisation, contribute to the increased risk of infection. Vaccination is important in people with diabetes although the efficacy of certain immunisations may be compromised, particularly in the presence of hyperglycaemia. The principles of treatment largely follow those of the general population with certain notable exceptions.

Consensus guidance for monitoring individuals with islet autoantibody-positive pre-stage 3 type 1 diabetes.

Given the proven benefits of screening to reduce diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) likelihood at the time of stage 3 type 1 diabetes diagnosis, and emerging availability of therapy to delay disease progression, type 1 diabetes screening programmes are being increasingly emphasised. Once broadly implemented, screening initiatives will identify significant numbers of islet autoantibody-positive (IAb+) children and adults who are at risk of (confirmed single IAb+) or living with (multiple IAb+) early-stage (stage 1 and stage 2) type 1 diabetes. These individuals will need monitoring for disease progression; much of this care will happen in non-specialised settings. To inform this monitoring, JDRF in conjunction with international experts and societies developed consensus guidance. Broad advice from this guidance includes the following: (1) partnerships should be fostered between endocrinologists and primary-care providers to care for people who are IAb+; (2) when people who are IAb+ are initially identified there is a need for confirmation using a second sample; (3) single IAb+ individuals are at lower risk of progression than multiple IAb+ individuals; (4) individuals with early-stage type 1 diabetes should have periodic medical monitoring, including regular assessments of glucose levels, regular education about symptoms of diabetes and DKA, and psychosocial support; (5) interested people with stage 2 type 1 diabetes should be offered trial participation or approved therapies; and (6) all health professionals involved in monitoring and care of individuals with type 1 diabetes have a responsibility to provide education. The guidance also emphasises significant unmet needs for further research on early-stage type 1 diabetes to increase the rigour of future recommendations and inform clinical care.

The effect of diabetes management on the workload of district and community nursing teams in the UK.

AIMS: The number of older people with diabetes requiring care from district nursing teams is increasing. The role of district nursing teams in diabetes management has expanded to involve diagnosis, treatment and medication administration. As the complexity of caseloads increases, the current model is likely unsustainable. This study aims to understand the current diabetes workload of district nursing teams. METHODS: An online survey was distributed via social media and key stakeholder networks to district nursing teams. Survey items were designed by the researchers prior to pilot testing with potential participants. Descriptive statistical and qualitative analyses were conducted. Data are median ± IQR. RESULTS: 159 district nursing teams completed the survey. The median caseload per team was 300 (IQR 176-407) patients including 21 with diabetes (IQR 14-40; 8.7% (4-20%)). 1.09 home visits per day per person with diabetes lasting 13.8 minutes (excluding travel time) were needed, with most requiring insulin administration. 96% of nursing teams undertake multiple daily visits for some patients. 91% reported workloads relating to diabetes management had increased over the last 2 years; 76% stated current diabetes workloads were unsustainable. More insulin usage, more referrals and a lack of ability or willingness to self-administer insulin has increased the diabetes workload. Possible solutions include better collaboration between healthcare professionals, simplification of insulin administration and glucose monitoring, better training and upskilling of healthcare assistants and promotion of self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes management forms an increasing component of district nursing workload and is likely to be unsustainable unless new models are found.

The psychosocial burdens of living with diabetes.

AIM: To better understand the prevalence of self-reported psychosocial burdens and the unmet needs identified by people with diabetes in relation to routine diabetes visits. METHODS: An English language, online survey was distributed via social media, key stakeholder networks, charity and advocacy groups to adults with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes. Survey items were designed by members of the FDA RESCUE Collaborative Community Governing Committee prior to pilot testing with potential participants. Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted, as well as thematic analyses on free-text responses using NVivo v14. RESULTS: Four hundred and seventy-eight participants completed the survey: 373 (78%) had type 1 diabetes, 346 (73%) identified as a woman and 433 (91%) were white. Most participants had experienced self-reported (rather than diagnosed) anxiety and depression (n = 323 and n = 313, respectively), as well as fear of low blood sugars (n = 294), low mood (n = 290) and diabetes-related distress (n = 257). Sixty-eight percent reported that diabetes had negatively affected self-esteem, 62% reported the feelings of loneliness, but 93% reported that friends/family/work colleagues were supportive when needed. Two hundred and seventy-two percent (57%) reported that their diabetes team had never raised the topic of mental health. The overwhelming majority stated that the best thing their diabetes team could do to help was to simply ask about mental well-being, listen with empathy and without judgement, and practice skills to understand psychosocial issues in diabetes. CONCLUSION: Integrating psychosocial discussions and support within routine healthcare visits is crucial to improve outcomes for people with diabetes. Such a biopsychosocial model of healthcare has long been advocated by regulatory bodies.

The Fusion Clinic: Integrating the care of people with severe mental illness and diabetes.

AIM: People with coexisting severe mental illness (SMI) and type 2 diabetes have a shorter life expectancy and poorer diabetes outcomes than those without SMI. This is partly explained by the separate treatment of diabetes and SMI, which occurs in parallel silos in many healthcare systems. The Steno Diabetes Center Sjaelland and Region Zealand established the Fusion Clinic to offer combined psychiatric and diabetes care delivered by both diabetes and mental healthcare professionals. This study describes how the clinic was established and the initial diabetes outcomes. METHODS: The Fusion Clinic was co-designed by people with diabetes and SMI and healthcare professionals to improve the care of adults with diabetes and SMI. The clinic approach utilised the F-ACT model. The 63 people referred to the Fusion Clinic between 01.02.2020 and 01.01.2022 who attended the clinic for more than 6 months were included in this study. Diabetes outcomes were recorded in the electronic medical records (Sundhedsplatformen EPIC). RESULTS: There was a high prevalence of diabetes complications at baseline. Furthermore, 70% had one or more additional concomitant diseases, as well as SMI and diabetes. Assessment of diabetes complications and measurements of HbA1c and lipid profile improved after referral to the clinic. HbA1c declined during the first 6 months of attendance at the clinic. CONCLUSIONS: This model of service delivery has the potential to improve the quality of care for people with SMI and type 2 diabetes.

A core outcome set for trials evaluating self-management interventions in people with severe mental illness and coexisting type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia, have higher rates of type 2 diabetes and worse outcomes, compared to those without SMI and it is not known whether diabetes self-management interventions are effective for people who have both conditions. Research in this area has been impeded by a lack of consensus on which outcomes to prioritise in people with co-existing SMI and diabetes. AIMS: To develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in effectiveness trials of diabetes self-management interventions in adults with both type 2 diabetes and SMI. METHODS: The COS was developed in three stages: (i) identification of outcomes from systematic literature review of intervention studies, followed by multi-stakeholder and service user workshops; (ii) rating of outcomes in a two-round online Delphi survey; (iii) agreement of final 'core' outcomes through a stakeholder consensus workshop. RESULTS: Seven outcomes were selected: glucose control, blood pressure, body composition (body weight, BMI, body fat), health-related quality of life, diabetes self-management, diabetes-related distress and medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: This COS is recommended for future trials of effectiveness of diabetes self-management interventions for people with SMI and type 2 diabetes. Its use will ensure trials capture important outcomes and reduce heterogeneity so findings can be readily synthesised to inform practice and policy.

Copenhagen Diabetes Consensus (CODIAC) 2021: User involvement in diabetes care, prevention and research.

AIMS: User involvement is pivotal for health development, but there are significant gaps in our understanding of the concept. The Copenhagen Diabetes Consensus on User Involvement in Diabetes Care, Prevention and Research (CODIAC) was established to address these gaps, share knowledge and develop best practices. METHODS: A literature review of user involvement was undertaken in diabetes care, prevention and research. Moreover, a Group Concept Mapping (GCM) survey synthesized the knowledge and opinions of researchers, healthcare professionals and people with diabetes and their carers to identify gaps between what is important for user involvement and what is being done in practice. Finally, a consensus conference discussed the main gaps in knowledge and practice while developing plans to address the shortcomings. RESULTS: The literature review demonstrated that user involvement is an effective strategy for diabetes care, prevention and research, given the right support and conditions, but gaps and key challenges regarding the value and impact of user involvement approaches were found. The GCM process identified 11 major gaps, where important issues were not being sufficiently practised. The conference considered these gaps and opportunities to develop new collaborative initiatives under eight overall themes. CONCLUSIONS: User involvement is effective and adds value to diabetes care, prevention and research when used under the right circumstances. CODIAC developed new learning about the way in which academic and research knowledge can be transferred to more practice-oriented knowledge and concrete collaborative initiatives. This approach may be a potential new framework for initiatives in which coherence of process can lead to coherent outputs.

The top 10 priorities in adults living with type 1 diabetes in Ireland and the United Kingdom - A James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership.

AIMS: To undertake a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP), identifying the most important unanswered questions in type 1 diabetes in Ireland and the United Kingdom and to compare these to priorities identified in a 2011 PSP. METHODS: A steering committee (including eight individuals with lived experience/charity representatives and six clinicians) designed a survey which asked stakeholders to list three questions about type 1 diabetes. This was disseminated through social media, direct email contact, and printed posters. Following analysis, a second survey asked participants to rank these priorities in order of importance. The top questions were then carried forward to an online, 2 days final workshop where the final top 10 were ranked. RESULTS: There were 1050 responses (64% female, 78% adults living with type 1 diabetes, 9% healthcare professionals, 9% family members) to the first survey and 2937 individual questions were submitted. Sixty-five summary questions were submitted into a second survey, completed by 497 individuals (76% adults living with type 1 diabetes, 9% healthcare professionals, and 11% family members). Nineteen questions from the interim survey progressed to a final workshop, which identified the top 10 priorities through group discussion. As in 2011, there was emphasis on psychological health, diabetes-related complications, and hypoglycaemia. New themes prioritised included artificial intelligence and women's health. CONCLUSIONS: The research priorities, which have been identified using a robust and proven methodology, highlight the key concerns of those living with type 1 diabetes, their families and representatives, as well as clinicians in Ireland and the UK.

Towards the standardisation of adult person-reported outcome domains in diabetes research: A Consensus Statement development panel.

Diabetes is unique among chronic diseases because clinical outcomes are intimately tied to how the person living with diabetes reacts to and implements treatment recommendations. It is further characterised by widespread social stigma, judgement and paternalism. This physical, social and psychological burden collectively influences self-management behaviours. It is widely recognised that the individual's perspective about the impact of trying to manage the disease and the burden that self-management confers must be addressed to achieve optimal health outcomes. Standardised, rigorous assessment of mental and behavioural health status, in interaction with physical health outcomes is crucial to aid understanding of person-reported outcomes (PROs). Whilst tempting to conceptualise PROs as an issue of perceived quality of life (QoL), in fact health-related QoL is multi-dimensional and covers indicators of physical or functional health status, psychological and social well-being. This complexity is illuminated by the large number of person reported outcome measures (PROMs) that have been developed across multiple psychosocial domains. Often measures are used inappropriately or because they have been used in the scientific literature rather than based on methodological or outcome assessment rigour. Given the broad nature of psychosocial functioning/mental health, it is important to broadly define PROs that are evaluated in the context of therapeutic interventions, real-life and observational studies. This report summarises the central themes and lessons derived in the assessment and use of PROMs amongst adults with diabetes. Effective assessment of PROMs routinely in clinical research is crucial to understanding the true impact of any intervention. Selecting appropriate measures, relevant to the specific factors of PROs important in the research study will provide valuable data alongside physical health data.

Development of a Supported Self-management Intervention for People With Severe Mental Illness and Type 2 Diabetes: Theory and Evidence-Based Co-design Approach.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is 2 to 3 times more common among people with severe mental illness (SMI). Self-management is crucial, with additional challenges faced by people with SMI. Therefore, it is essential that any diabetes self-management program for people with SMI addresses the unique needs of people living with both conditions and the inequalities they experience within health care services. OBJECTIVE: We combined theory, empirical evidence, and co-design approaches to develop a type 2 diabetes self-management intervention for people with SMI. METHODS: The development process encompassed 4 steps: step 1 involved prioritizing the mechanisms of action (MoAs) and behavior change techniques (BCTs) for the intervention. Using findings from primary qualitative research and systematic reviews, we selected candidate MoAs to target in the intervention and candidate BCTs to use. Expert stakeholders then ranked these MoAs and BCTs using a 2-phase survey. The average scores were used to generate a prioritized list of MoAs and BCTs. During step 2, we presented the survey results to an expert consensus workshop to seek expert agreement with the definitive list of MoAs and BCTs for the intervention and identify potential modes of delivery. Step 3 involved the development of trigger films using the evidence from steps 1 and 2. We used animations to present the experiences of people with SMI managing diabetes. These films were used in step 4, where we used a stakeholder co-design approach. This involved a series of structured workshops, where the co-design activities were informed by theory and evidence. RESULTS: Upon the completion of the 4-step process, we developed the DIAMONDS (diabetes and mental illness, improving outcomes and self-management) intervention. It is a tailored self-management intervention based on the synthesis of the outputs from the co-design process. The intervention incorporates a digital app, a paper-based workbook, and one-to-one coaching designed to meet the needs of people with SMI and coexisting type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention development work was underpinned by the MoA theoretical framework and incorporated systematic reviews, primary qualitative research, expert stakeholder surveys, and evidence generated during co-design workshops. The intervention will now be tested for feasibility before undergoing a definitive evaluation in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Healthcare resource use and costs for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus with and without severe mental illness in England: longitudinal matched-cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 60 000 people in England have coexisting type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and severe mental illness (SMI). They are more likely to have poorer health outcomes and require more complex care pathways compared with those with T2DM alone. Despite increasing prevalence, little is known about the healthcare resource use and costs for people with both conditions. AIMS: To assess the impact of SMI on healthcare resource use and service costs for adults with T2DM, and explore the predictors of healthcare costs and lifetime costs for people with both conditions. METHOD: This was a matched-cohort study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics for 1620 people with comorbid SMI and T2DM and 4763 people with T2DM alone. Generalised linear models and the Bang and Tsiatis method were used to explore cost predictors and mean lifetime costs respectively. RESULTS: There were higher average annual costs for people with T2DM and SMI (£1930 higher) than people with T2DM alone, driven primarily by mental health and non-mental health-related hospital admissions. Key predictors of higher total costs were older age, comorbid hypertension, use of antidepressants, use of first-generation antipsychotics, and increased duration of living with both conditions. Expected lifetime costs were approximately £35 000 per person with both SMI and T2DM. Extrapolating nationally, this would generate total annual costs to the National Health Service of around £250 m per year. CONCLUSIONS: Our estimates of resource use and costs for people with both T2DM and SMI will aid policymakers and commissioners in service planning and resource allocation.

User-driven open-source artificial pancreas systems and patient-reported outcomes: A missed opportunity?

AIM: This paper aims to highlight the attributes of engagement and urgency to act to control diabetes demonstrated by open-source artificial pancreas system users with the view that increased user involvement in research and practice can capitalize on these self-management traits; and to outline the challenges of researching outcomes in the context of unlicensed therapies. METHODS: A group of technically minded people with type 1 diabetes have reverse-engineered commercially available diabetes devices to help them achieve the diabetes outcomes they desire. Although studies have reported improved biomedical outcomes with these artificial pancreas systems, there are only a few studies examining patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: The investigation of patient-reported outcomes for open-source artificial pancreas system users has been hampered by the rapid advances in the technology, the lack of randomized controlled trials and the ethical challenges of researching unregulated technologies. There is an on-going debate about the most appropriate types of measures to evaluate patient-related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The early adopters of open-source artificial pancreas systems exhibit many of the characteristics that predict optimal diabetes outcomes through engagement and urgency regarding self-management. These qualities should be harnessed to improve research in this and other areas of diabetes management.

Liraglutide and the management of overweight and obesity in people with severe mental illness: qualitative sub-study.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illness are two to three times more likely to be overweight or have obesity than the general population and this is associated with significant morbidity and premature mortality. Liraglutide 3 mg is a once daily injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist that is licensed for the treatment of obesity in the general population and has the potential to be used in people with severe mental illness. AIMS: To record the expectations and experiences of people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorders or first episode psychosis taking daily liraglutide 3 mg injections in a clinical trial for the treatment of obesity. To seek the views of healthcare professionals about the feasibility of delivering the intervention in routine care. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were undertaken with a purposive sub-sample of people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorders or first episode psychosis with overweight or obesity who were treated with a daily injection of liraglutide 3 mg in a double-blinded, randomised controlled pilot study evaluating the use of liraglutide for the treatment of obesity. Interviews were also conducted with healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Seventeen patient participants were interviewed. Sixteen took part in the baseline interview, eight completed both baseline and follow-up interviews, and one took part in follow-up interview only. Mean interview duration was thirteen minutes (range 5-37 min). Despite reservations by some participants about the injections before the study, most of those who completed the trial reported no challenges in the timing of or administering the injections. Key themes included despondency regarding prior medication associated weight gain, quality of life impact of weight loss, practical aspects of participation including materials received and clinic attendance. Healthcare professionals reported challenges with recruitment, however, overall it was a positive experience for them and for participants. CONCLUSION: Liraglutide appears to be an acceptable therapy for obesity in this population with limited side effects. The quality of life benefits realised by several intervention participants reinforce the biomedical benefits of achieved weight loss.

The management of type 1 diabetes in adults. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) convened a writing group to develop a consensus statement on the management of type 1 diabetes in adults. The writing group has considered the rapid development of new treatments and technologies and addressed the following topics: diagnosis, aims of management, schedule of care, diabetes self-management education and support, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycaemia, behavioural considerations, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis, pancreas and islet transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations, inpatient management and future perspectives. Although we discuss the schedule for follow-up examinations and testing, we have not included the evaluation and treatment of the chronic microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes as these are well-reviewed and discussed elsewhere. The writing group was aware of both national and international guidance on type 1 diabetes and did not seek to replicate this but rather aimed to highlight the major areas that healthcare professionals should consider when managing adults with type 1 diabetes. Though evidence-based where possible, the recommendations in the report represent the consensus opinion of the authors. Graphical abstract.

The effects of recombinant human insulin-like growth factor-1/insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 administration on lipid and carbohydrate metabolism in recreational athletes.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies suggested that recombinant human IGF-1 (rhIGF-1) administration affects carbohydrate and lipid metabolism in healthy people and in people with diabetes. This study aimed to determine the effects of rhIGF-1/rhIGF binding protein-3 (rhIGFBP-3) administration on glucose homeostasis and lipid metabolism in healthy recreational athletes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled rhIGF-1/rhIGFBP-3 administration study at Southampton General Hospital, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 56 recreational athletes (30 men, 26 women). METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive placebo, low-dose rhIGF-1/rhIGFBP-3 (30 mg/day) or high-dose rhIGF-1/rhIGFBP-3 (60 mg/day) for 28 days. The following variables were measured before and immediately after the treatment period: fasting lipids, glucose, insulin, C-peptide and glycated haemoglobin. The homeostatic model assessment (HOMA-IR) was used to estimate insulin sensitivity and indirect calorimetry to assess substrate oxidation rates. The general linear model approach was used to compare treatment group changes with the placebo group. RESULTS: Compared with the placebo group, there was a significant reduction in fasting triglycerides in participants treated with high-dose rhIGF-1/rhIGFBP-3 (p = .030), but not in the low-dose group (p = .390). In women, but not in men, there were significant increases in total cholesterol (p = .003), HDL cholesterol (p = .001) and LDL cholesterol (p = .008). These lipid changes were associated with reduced fasting insulin (p = .010), C-peptide (p = .001) and HOMA-IR (p = .018) in women and reduced C-peptide (p = .046) in men. CONCLUSIONS: rhIGF-1/rhIGFBP-3 administration for 28 days reduced insulin concentration, improved insulin sensitivity and had significant effects on lipid profile including decreased fasting triglycerides.

Impact of diabetes on COVID-19 and other infection: Report from the 22nd Hong Kong Diabetes and Cardiovascular Risk Factors-East Meets West Symposium.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed enormous challenges to healthcare systems worldwide. The negative impact of COVID-19 is widespread and includes not only people who contracted the disease but also those with chronic morbidities such as diabetes whose care is compromised due to diversion of medical resources. People with diabetes are generally more susceptible to infection as a result of altered immunity. People with diabetes have a worse prognosis from COVID-19 and there is evidence to suggest that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may directly affect pancreatic function precipitating hyperglycaemic crises. In the United Kingdom, one of the most heavily affected countries, guidelines are in place to unify the management of people with diabetes hospitalized for COVID-19. Diabetes services are re-organized to ensure that medical care of people with diabetes is maintained despite resource and other practical constraints. Public health measures including social distancing, hand hygiene and the use of face masks are crucial in containing community transmission of the virus. Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated city in the world, is particularly vulnerable and has in place a stringent containment policy and aggressive contact tracing to ensure public safety during this pandemic.

The use of liraglutide 3.0 mg daily in the management of overweight and obesity in people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and first episode psychosis: Results of a pilot randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

AIM: To investigate the feasibility and acceptability of using liraglutide 3.0 mg daily in the management of overweight and obesity in people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and first episode psychosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot trial took place in mental health centres and primary care within Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust. The participants were adults with schizophrenia, schizoaffective or first-episode psychosis prescribed antipsychotic medication who were overweight or obese. The intervention was once-daily subcutaneous liraglutide or placebo, titrated to 3.0 mg daily, for 6 months. The primary outcomes were recruitment, consent, retention and adherence. The secondary exploratory outcomes were weight, HbA1c and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. RESULTS: Seven hundred and ninety-nine individuals were screened for eligibility. The most common reasons for exclusion were ineligibility (44%) and inability to make contact (28%). The acceptance rate, as a proportion of all eligible participants, was 12.2%. The most commonly stated reason why eligible candidates declined to participate related to the study-specific medication and protocol (n = 50). Forty-seven participants were randomized, with 79% completing the trial. Participants in the liraglutide arm lost a mean 5.7 ± 7.9 kg compared with no significant weight change in the placebo group (treatment difference -6.0 kg, p = .015). Body mass index, waist circumference and HbA1c were reduced in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the need for a larger randomized controlled trial to evaluate the use of liraglutide (maximum dose 3.0 mg daily) in the management of obesity in people with severe mental illness.

Completion of annual diabetes care processes and mortality: A cohort study using the National Diabetes Audit for England and Wales.

AIM: To conduct an analysis to assess whether the completion of recommended diabetes care processes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c], creatinine, cholesterol, blood pressure, body mass index [BMI], smoking habit, urinary albumin, retinal and foot examinations) at least annually is associated with mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort from the National Diabetes Audit of England and Wales comprising 179 105 people with type 1 and 1 397 790 people with type 2 diabetes, aged 17 to 99 years on January 1, 2009, diagnosed before January 1, 2009 and alive on April 1, 2013 was followed to December 31, 2019. Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for demographic characteristics, smoking, HbA1c, blood pressure, serum cholesterol, BMI, duration of diagnosis, estimated glomerular filtration rate, prior myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, respiratory disease and cancer, were used to investigate whether care processes recorded January 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010 were associated with subsequent mortality. RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up of 7.5 and 7.0 years there were 26 915 and 388 093 deaths in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. Completion of five or fewer, compared to eight, care processes (retinal screening not included as data were not reliable) had a mortality hazard ratio (HR) of 1.37 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-1.46) in people with type 1 and 1.32 (95% CI 1.30-1.35) in people with type 2 diabetes. The HR was higher for respiratory disease deaths and lower in South Asian ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: People with diabetes who have fewer routine care processes have higher mortality. Further research is required into whether different approaches to care might improve outcomes for this high-risk group.

Structured lifestyle education for people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and first-episode psychosis (STEPWISE): randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a major challenge for people with schizophrenia.AimsWe assessed whether STEPWISE, a theory-based, group structured lifestyle education programme could support weight reduction in people with schizophrenia. METHOD: In this randomised controlled trial (study registration: ISRCTN19447796), we recruited adults with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or first-episode psychosis from ten mental health organisations in England. Participants were randomly allocated to the STEPWISE intervention or treatment as usual. The 12-month intervention comprised four 2.5 h weekly group sessions, followed by 2-weekly maintenance contact and group sessions at 4, 7 and 10 months. The primary outcome was weight change after 12 months. Key secondary outcomes included diet, physical activity, biomedical measures and patient-related outcome measures. Cost-effectiveness was assessed and a mixed-methods process evaluation was included. RESULTS: Between 10 March 2015 and 31 March 2016, we recruited 414 people (intervention 208, usual care 206) with 341 (84.4%) participants completing the trial. At 12 months, weight reduction did not differ between groups (mean difference 0.0 kg, 95% CI -1.6 to 1.7, P = 0.963); physical activity, dietary intake and biochemical measures were unchanged. STEPWISE was well-received by participants and facilitators. The healthcare perspective incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £246 921 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were successfully recruited and retained, indicating a strong interest in weight interventions; however, the STEPWISE intervention was neither clinically nor cost-effective. Further research is needed to determine how to manage overweight and obesity in people with schizophrenia.Declaration of interestR.I.G.H. received fees for lecturing, consultancy work and attendance at conferences from the following: Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Lundbeck, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, Sunovion, Takeda, MSD. M.J.D. reports personal fees from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Servier, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Inc.; and, grants from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen. K.K. has received fees for consultancy and speaker for Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Servier and Merck Sharp & Dohme. He has received grants in support of investigator and investigator-initiated trials from Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Merck Sharp & Dohme. K.K. has received funds for research, honoraria for speaking at meetings and has served on advisory boards for Lilly, Sanofi-Aventis, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Novo Nordisk. D.Sh. is expert advisor to the NICE Centre for guidelines; board member of the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH); clinical advisor (paid consultancy basis) to National Clinical Audit of Psychosis (NCAP); views are personal and not those of NICE, NCCMH or NCAP. J.P. received personal fees for involvement in the study from a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) grant. M.E.C. and Y.D. report grants from NIHR Health Technology Assessment, during the conduct of the study; and The Leicester Diabetes Centre, an organisation (employer) jointly hosted by an NHS Hospital Trust and the University of Leicester and who is holder (through the University of Leicester) of the copyright of the STEPWISE programme and of the DESMOND suite of programmes, training and intervention fidelity framework that were used in this study. S.R. has received honorarium from Lundbeck for lecturing. F.G. reports personal fees from Otsuka and Lundbeck, personal fees and non-financial support from Sunovion, outside the submitted work; and has a family member with professional links to Lilly and GSK, including shares. F.G. is in part funded by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research & Care Funding scheme, by the Maudsley Charity and by the Stanley Medical Research Institute and is supported by the by the Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London.